Two heirs tried to stop a court-ordered foreclosure sale just days before it happened. But the court ruled their motion came too late and failed key legal requirements
The Connecticut Appellate Court has upheld a trial court’s denial of a motion to reopen a foreclosure judgment tied to a reverse mortgage loan, rejecting a challenge brought by the heirs of a deceased borrower who had attempted to intervene just days before the scheduled property sale.
The case, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Widow(er), Heir(s) and/or Creditors of the Estate of Beryl E. Rowland, AC 47141, centered on procedural compliance in a foreclosure action following the death of the borrower under a reverse mortgage agreement.
In March 2015, Beryl E. Rowland executed a home equity conversion note and mortgage in favor of Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., securing future loan advances not to exceed $367,500 on her home in Danbury, Connecticut. The note designated the borrower’s death as the maturity event, entitling the lender to demand full repayment.
After Rowland died on December 20, 2020, the lender accelerated the debt and initiated foreclosure proceedings in October 2021. The lender, which later merged with Mortgage Assets Management, LLC, named as defendants “the widow(er), heir(s), and/or creditors of the Estate of Beryl E. Rowland,” as well as the decedent’s son, Andrew Pylypczuk.
When initial attempts to locate and serve known heirs failed, the court approved notice by publication, and service on Andrew was attempted via the Connecticut Secretary of the State and certified mail to a Maryland address. That mailing was returned as undeliverable. The trial court later defaulted all defendants for failure to appear and entered a judgment of foreclosure by sale on July 24, 2023. The judgment reflected a debt of $82,668.91 and a fair market value of $393,000 for the property.
On November 8, 2023—just three days before the scheduled sale—Trinity Tatiana Pylypczuk and Andrew Bryce Pylypczuk, the grandchildren of the decedent, appeared through counsel and filed a motion to open and vacate the judgment, or alternatively, to extend the sale date. They also filed a motion to intervene and a suggestion of death regarding Andrew Pylypczuk, stating he had died in 2021.
The heirs asserted that they had only learned of the foreclosure days earlier and requested time to arrange a private sale or satisfy the loan, citing the property’s significant equity. The trial court, without holding a hearing, denied the motion and allowed the foreclosure sale to proceed. A third party was the successful bidder. The heirs appealed.
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the denial, concluding that the trial court acted within its discretion.
The court first held that the heirs had standing under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-69, which allows a plaintiff to name unknown heirs as parties in foreclosure actions involving deceased persons. Because the complaint explicitly named “heir(s)” and the heirs subsequently appeared claiming that status, they were deemed parties to the underlying action.
However, the court found that the motion to open the judgment failed to meet the statutory requirements of § 52-212, which governs motions to open default judgments. Under that statute, a party must:
- Show that a good defense existed at the time of judgment; and
- Demonstrate that the failure to appear was due to mistake, accident, or other reasonable cause.
The Appellate Court noted that the heirs failed to assert any defense to the foreclosure itself. They did not contest the validity of the debt or challenge the mortgage’s terms. Moreover, their motion was not verified by oath, a mandatory requirement under § 52-212(c).
While the heirs raised concerns about notice, the court found that these issues did not rise to a jurisdictional defect that would excuse noncompliance with statutory procedures. The heirs did not file a motion to dismiss and failed to submit any sworn affidavits with their motion.
The trial court was therefore entitled to deny the motion without a hearing, and the appellate panel presumed the lower court applied the law correctly.
The case did not involve any interpretation or dispute of policy or loan terms beyond the standard clause in reverse mortgage agreements allowing the lender to accelerate repayment upon the borrower’s death. The judgment focused entirely on procedural issues, particularly the statutory framework for reopening foreclosure judgments after default.
The ruling reinforces the importance of strict procedural compliance in foreclosure litigation—especially in cases involving reverse mortgages, where the borrower’s death often initiates foreclosure proceedings. For lenders, the decision provides clarity on the effectiveness of § 52-69 for proceeding against unknown heirs. For heirs, it underscores the need for timely action and statutory adherence when seeking post-judgment relief.
The Appellate Court also noted that the denial of the motion to open did not extinguish the heirs’ right to redeem, which remains available until the sale is ratified.
